Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
It’s now August 2; don’t expect much from me today as for some reason I didn’t sleep well and am wiped out. But, like Maru, I do my best. Today’s holiday is Our Lady of the Angels Day in Costa Rica, commemorating the finding of a mysterious icon of the Virgin. Real things that happened on this date include the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776; it was first signed on July 4, but the “official” copy was signed on August 2. On this day in 1870, the Tube, the first worlds underground tube subway, began running in England. And, in 1937, marijuana became illegal in the U.S. with the signing of The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Finally, on August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, launching the Gulf War.
Notables born on this day include Myrna Loy (1905 ♥), James Baldwin (1924), Peter O’Toole (1932), Garth Hudson (1937), and Isabel Allende (1942). Those who died on this day include Wild Bill Hickock (1876; supposedly shot to death during a game of poker while holding the “dead man’s hand“—aces and eights), Enrico Caruso (1921), Alexander Graham Bell (1922), Wallace Stevens (1955), William S. Burroughs (1997), and Shari Lewis (1998; who remembers Lamb Chop?). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Her Highness deigned to allow me to carry her inside after she announced her presence by jumping on the windowsill:
Jerry: Come, I will carry you in.
Hili: Since you came the social services have improved.
In Polish:
Jerry: Chodź, zaniosę cię do domu.
Hili: Od czasu jak przyjechałeś mamy znacznie lepszą opiekę społeczną.
For a lighthearted end of the day, here’s a series of letters from and to the Great Agnostic, Robert G. Ingersoll. I’ve read quite a bit of his stuff, and he was the most eloquent and “strident” atheist writer of his time—the Hitchens of the 19th century. By all accounts Ingersoll, despite his nonbelief, was a saintly man, widely beloved and, like Hitchens, a fierce and unbeatable speaker on the platform.
Reader Ginger K. called my attention to a new post at Letters of Note, which reproduces a lovely letter that Ingersoll sent his future son-in-law, Walton Brown, along with a bottle of fine whiskey (Ingersoll was, as befits a heathen, a lover of good food and drink). The letter was apparently widely circulated and reprinted in The Nation; but it angered J. M. Buckley, editor of The Christian Advocate, who printed a response. Both letters are reproduced below:
89 Fifth Avenue
New York
Walston H. Brown, Esq.
April 16, 1887
My dear Friend,
I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the skeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is the mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine and the shadows that chased each other over the billowy fields; the breath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth of summer and autumn’s rich content, all golden with imprisoned light.
Drink it—and you will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the “Harvest Home,” mingled with the laughter of children.
Drink it—and you will feel within your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks of many perfect days.
For forty years this liquid joy has been within the happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips of men.
Yours always,
R. G. Ingersoll
*********
My dear Bob,
I return to you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever brought a skeleton into the closet or painted scenes of lust and bloodshed in the brain of man. It is the ghost of wheat and corn, crazed by the loss of their natural bodies. In it you will find a transient sunshine chased by a shadow as cold as an Arctic midnight, in which the breath of June grows icy, and the carol of the lark gives place to the foreboding cry of the raven.
Drink it—and you will have woe, sorrow, babbling and wounds without cause. Your eyes shall behold strange women and your heart shall utter perverse things.
Drink it—and you shall hear the voices of demons shrieking, women wailing, children mourning the loss of a father who yet lives.
Drink it—and long serpents will hiss in your ears, coil themselves about your neck and seize you with their fangs. ‘At last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder.’
For forty years this liquid death has been confined with staves of oak, harmless there as pure water. I send it to your mouth to steal away your brains, and yet I call myself your friend.
“We may find it hard to believe that religious beliefs could motivate murders and insist that extreme violence is always due to mental instability or political fanaticism. But the logic (and the history) of religions tells against this view.” –Gary Gutting, having an epiphany
The Stone, the New York Times‘s philosophy column, is remarkably undistinguished, and one reason is Gary Gutting, the Notre Dame philosopher whose Stone columns are not only baby-soft on faith, but full of unenlightening bromides (see here).
His latest piece at the Times, “How religion can lead to violence“, shows a man who, though he’s a philosopher and concerned with religion, seems completely oblivious to what atheists and secularists have been saying for years: religion, like other ideologies, can prompt violence. The quote that heads this post is from his piece, and all I’d say to that is, “Well, Dr. Gutting, over at WEITwe don’t find it so hard to understand that religious beliefs could motivate violence. After all, other ideologies like Communism or Nazism, are well known for promoting violence.”
Wed that to religion’s claim of absolute truth and its promulgation of a moral code, and you have an automatic recipe for “othering”. And if your scripture calls explicitly for violence against nonbelievers, as does the Qur’an, then why is Gutting so surprised?
I’ll tell you why: he can barely bring himself to think that religion can produce anything bad. That’s what Dan Dennett calls “belief in belief.” When Gutting figures out the obvious, he writes a column about it.
It’s not surprising that what brought Gutting to the realization that all of us have had (save weaselly apologists like Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald) is the murder of the French priest, Jacques Hamel, by two people acting in the name of ISIS. (Notre Dame is a Catholic school, and Gutting is a liberal Catholic.) Read the paragraphs below and see if you find anything in them that we haven’t hashed over during the past five years:
“These heinous crimes violate the tolerant teachings of Islam.” Similar responses followed recent attacks in Orlando and Nice. We are told that the fanatical fringe groups who do these terrible things are at odds with the essential Muslim commitment to peace and love. I understand the reasons for such responses, but they oversimplify the relation of religion to intolerance and the violence it can lead to.
Both Islam and Christianity claim to be revealed religions, holding that their teachings are truths that God himself has conveyed to us and wants everyone to accept. They were, from the start, missionary religions. A religion charged with bringing God’s truth to the world faces the question of how to deal with people who refuse to accept it. To what extent should it tolerate religious error? At certain points in their histories, both Christianity and Islam have been intolerant of other religions, often of each other, even to the point of violence.
This was not inevitable, but neither was it an accident. The potential for intolerance lies in the logic of religions like Christianity and Islam that say their teaching derive from a divine revelation. For them, the truth that God has revealed is the most important truth there is; therefore, denying or doubting this truth is extremely dangerous, both for nonbelievers, who lack this essential truth, and for believers, who may well be misled by the denials and doubts of nonbelievers. Given these assumptions, it’s easy to conclude that even extreme steps are warranted to eliminate nonbelief.
There follows a tedious disquisition on the history of religious intolerance, just to show that Christianity and Judaism were once intolerant, too. But then Gutting gets to his point:
Today, almost all Christians are reconciled to this revision, and many would even claim that it better reflects the true meaning of their religion.
The same is not true of Muslims. A minority of Muslim nations have a high level of religious toleration; for example Albania, Kosovo, Senegal and Sierra Leone. But a majority — including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Malaysia — maintain strong restrictions on non-Muslim (and in some cases certain “heretical” Muslim) beliefs and practices. Although many Muslims think God’s will requires tolerance of false religious views, many do not.
A Pew Research Center poll in 2013 found that in Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan and other nations in which Islam is officially favored, a large majority of Muslims think some form of Islamic law should be the law of the land. The poll also found that 76 percent of such Muslims in South Asia and 56 percent in the Middle East and North Africa favored executing Muslims who gave up their religion, and that in 10 Muslim counties at least 40 percent favored applying Islamic law to non-Muslims. This shows that, for many Muslims, the revealed truths of Islam are not only a matter of personal conviction but must also have a central place in the public sphere of a well-ordered society.
The Pew poll is 3 years old, and we’ve discussed it here at length. Why did Gutting just discover it?
Apparently he’s also discovered that the taming of religious extremism by the Enlightenment is one reason why we don’t have so many terrorists citing the Old or New Testaments, or crying “Jesus is great!” as they sever someone’s head.
There is no central religious authority or overwhelming consensus that excludes such Muslims from Islam. Intolerance need not lead to violence against nonbelievers; but, as we have seen, the logic of revelation readily moves in that direction unless interpretations of sacred texts are subject to nonreligious constraints.
. . . Does this mean that Islam is evil? No, but it does mean that it has not yet tamed, to the extent that Christianity has, the danger implicit in any religion that claims to be God’s own truth. To put it bluntly, Islam as a whole has not made the concessions to secular values that Christianity has.
What a revelation! In the end, Gutting notes that until Islamic extremism is “tamed” by modern values, it will continue to be a religiously based source of evil acts. Again, nothing to see here folks; move along.
While Gutting is preaching to the choir here, he’s also preaching to the real choir: the believers and faitheists who read the Times. And that’s to the good, for even getting people to admit that religion can produce violence is a step forward in a world of Ostrich Leftism. So let’s hear the sound of 1.5 hands clapping for Gutting’s piece.
Most people who post or cry “All Lives Matter” in response to the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) slogan are, I think, either obtuse or bigoted. What “Black Live Matter” really means is “Black Lives Matter Too“—that African-Americans are marginalized in society. That is, despite the big gains in civil rights over the last fifty years, there is still residual racism in society, and sometimes it’s among the police.
I don’t know whether white police are any more bigoted than white Americans in general, but when a policeman is bigoted (I’ll use the masculine term since women are rarely involved in the inflammatory incidents), it can have far more serious consequences than if a regular citizen is bigoted. The police have power, and they’re armed.
In general, “All lives matter,” then, has the effect of dismissing the justifiable accusations of bigotry raised by the BLM movement. While I often disagree with that movement’s tactics, and feel that they’ve unfairly tarred American police as a whole, I think in the main BLM has called needed attention to bigotry on the part of some police, and, in the case of my city, of the Chicago’s tendency to cover up what seem to be racially motivated murders by the police. Without outside pressure, there would be little examination, and any needed reform, of police departments.
Now there are some folks who say “All lives matter” or “Blue lives matter” (the latter to support police who are themselves targets) as a general sign of compassion, and aren’t dismissing the concerns of African-Americans. But I think such people are few compared to those who use those phrases to minimize the concerns of black people.
Which brings us to the case of Rohini Sethi, vice-president of the University of Houston’s (UH’s) Student Government Association (SGA). Sethi is a chemical engineering major and of Indian ancestry, which, I suppose, qualifies her as a “person of color.” But that didn’t help after Sethi put up a Facebook post following the shooting of five Dallas Police Officers (See reports on this story at various places, including here, here, here, here, and here; they’re mostly, but not all, from conservative websites). Here’s Rohini’s post, which was removed when the outcry began but archived by offended students:
Although this may have been meant in a spirit of expansive empathy, it was surely unwise, especially for a student government officer. However, the ensuing fracas was, I think, disproportionate. Here’s a bit of the outcry (quotes below are taken from the five sources above):
Wesley Okereke, a psychology senior and the UH NAACP president, said he hopes that the University and SGA will “respond to the issue accordingly.”
“I am deeply disappointed in the comments made by our student body VP, Rohini Sethi,” Okereke said. “To say, ‘Forget #BlackLivesMatter,’ as if we were not a factor in her getting voted into office is a slap in the face to the entire student body. Also, with this school being the No. 2 most diverse university in the nation, comments such as these are unacceptable because it misrepresents the large minority student body here at UH.”
. . . For accounting senior Alexis Sanders, Sethi’s words weren’t just harsh, they were incendiary. She doesn’t feel like Sethi can fully represent her, and therefore, shouldn’t be in student government.
“Being a black woman, her comment was an insensitive, disgusting, thoughtless, and blatantly disrespectful remark,” Sanders said. “Her comment proved she lacks sympathy for her constituents, and if she lacks sympathy for a portion of the students she represents, then she cannot represent the student body as whole. To say, ‘Forget #BlackLivesMatter,” is to say forget all the injustices we face and have faced for years as an African-American race. We are just supposed to simply forget systematic racism, unjust sentences, police brutality and the unlawful killings of the African-American race.”
Rohini apologized profusely and at length, both to a local television station and on Facebook, saying that “I’m very sorry to my community and for the emotions, anger, and pain that I caused.” (Go here to see her full contrition.)
I would have thought that the apology would be enough. But no, the hounds were already baying for blood. Nothing short of a strict and public punishment would do.
There followed a #RemoveRohini hashtag movement, but that would be difficult: removing an SGA officer requires not only a 3/4 vote of the SGA, but also a trial by the student Supreme Court. Therefore the SGA voted on a unprecedented special bill to allow its President, Shane Smith, to decide unilaterally on Rohini’s punishment. Smith’s letter outlines these five sanctions (summarized below by the Daily Caller):
A 50-day suspension from SGA starting August 1. This suspension will be unpaid (she currently receives a stipend of about $700 a month).
A requirement to attend three “UH cultural events” each month from September through March, excluding December.
An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted SGA and the UH student body
An order to put on a public presentation Sept. 28 detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”
I would have thought that, although Rohini’s posting was unwise for a student representative, her apology would suffice. It’s for sure that, given the outcry, she would never have said anything like that again!
But the punishment seems draconian—almost Orwellian—in its requirement that Rohini be “rehabilitated”. Remember, she not only has to go to 21 cultural events as well as attend a diversity workshop, but she is also suspended for nearly two months and, as well as having to write her “letter of reflection,” must make a public pronouncement of contrition. I find that unconscionable: it’s like putting her in the stocks for public shaming. Only the hurling of rotten vegetables is missing. And this is came from the Facebook post above.
I frown on those who say things like “All Lives Matter,” but perhaps Rohini was acting in the heat of her sorrow for the slain cops, and isn’t really a bigot. Motives do matter—except to the Offended Crowd for whom words are sufficient to put you beyond the pale. Say the wrong words, and you’re expelled, forever to be a figure of denigration and suspicion.
I believe I wrote one post, a long time ago, asking readers to recount their journey to nonbelief. That, I thought, would not only help us get to know each other, but to appreciate the diversity of ways that people either embraced atheism from the outset, or did so while leaving their faith.
Today, though, I have a different question, one that came from a hypothesis I floated two days ago: is anybody an atheist for reasons other than lack of evidence for God or evidence against the idea of God (e.g., the existence of undeserved evil)? In other words, is your nonbelief grounded on evidence or the lack thereof?
I’d like to know the answer to this, for in truth I can’t see any other reasons for rejecting God. So here I pose a simple question to readers, which I’d appreciate your answering. It’s this:
If you were asked explain to someone, say an open-minded person you’d just met, why you’re an atheist, and were limited to at most three sentences, what would you say?
I’ve given my own answer before, but as always I’ll answer the question here. It’s this: “I realized at age 17 that there was not a whit of evidence for anything I’d ever been told about God, and abandoned the idea within a few minutes of that realization.”
Reader Mark Sturtevant sent some photos of arthropods; his notes are indented:
Here is another batch of pictures. These were largely taken during the winter, when I had very little invertebrate companionship except for the occasional creepy crawly. Obviously I was experimenting on photography against white backgrounds. Some of these were taken with an ancient 50mm manual Canon Fd lens that I got essentially for free (it was in a bunch of other camera gear that I bought through Craigslist). The lens was reverse mounted onto extension tubes.
The first three pictures are of a male dimorphic jumping spider (Maevia inclemens). They are so-named because the males come in two color morphs, this being the prettier one. This little cutie was hanging out on a lampshade in our house for a few days, and so I decided it needed its picture taken. Jumping spiders can be rather difficult to manage since they see very well and react to most any movement. But this little guy hopped right into my hand and obligingly worked with me through the whole process of taking pictures at our kitchen table. I was very pleased with it so I gave it a fruit fly, as shown in the last picture.
Next is a female dimorphic jumping spider which showed up at work, and so I brought it home. Was she as cooperative as the male? No. She was a complete pain in the tuchas, true to the nature of their family.
Next up is a big Muscid fly, species unknown but I am thinking genus Morellia. I put this one inside a cage on white paper, and to get it to stay in one place I made sure it was hungry and I laid down some sugar.
Finally we have an elegant critter known as the parson spider (Herpyllus ecclesiasticus). The name of these common ground spiders refers to their white markings which resembles the cravat once worn by the clergy.
And Stephen Barnard sent some flies:
Mating drone flies (species unknown). Not a good photo technically, but it was unusual to see.
Additional photo included at no extra charge. 🙂 [JAC: I suspect that this, like many drone flies, is a bee mimic.] The Forest Service website says this about drone flies:
“The diverse group of flower flies and hover flies (family Syrphidae) includes many successful bee mimics. Drone flies (members of the genera Eristalis) masquerade as bees with various body forms and striping patterns that are almost perfect matches to many common bee species. Often very effective pollinators due to their hairy bodies, flies have keystone roles in many of ecosystems where they occur. Flies are also the dominant (and in some cases only) pollinators of key crops and foods like coffee, chocolate, tea, bananas, and mangoes.”
It’s August! Monday, August 1, 2016, and in some places there are holidays, including Canada and Ireland, but I don’t know the occasions. All over the world, though, it’s World Scout Scarf Day, in which you’re supposed to wear your Scout neckerchief, even if you’re a businessman in London City, to commemorate your membership. I’m betting that not many comply. How many people will see a Scout scarf today?
On this day in 1774, Joseph Priestly discovered oxygen, although it had already been discovered (but published only later) by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, a Swedish chemist whose dilatory publishing habits—he’d also discovered molybdenum, tungsten, barium, hydrogen, and chlorine, but didn’t get credit—led Isaac Asimov to call him “Hard Luck Scheele”. On this day in 1834, slavery was abolished in the British Empire, and, exactly 110 years later, the Warsaw Uprising broke out, the largest resistance movement against the Nazis in WWII. It failed because of the Russian Army’s failure to enter Warsaw, and so the entire city was destroyed by the German army. (Note: this is not the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, which occurred in April, 1943.) The father of my host Andrzej’ was in the Polish Resistance army then, and participated in this operation in a maneuver—also a failure—to draw the Germany Army out of Warsaw. On this day in 1966, Charles Whitman killed 16 people at the University of Texas at Austin, sniping from atop the tower until he was killed by police. He was later discovered to have a brain tumor that might have influenced his behavior.
Notables born on this day include mountaineer Eric Shipton (1907) and evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton (1936), bizarrely identified by Wikipedia as an “Egyptian-English biologist, psychologist, and academic”. Hamilton was born in Egypt, but his parents were from New Zealand and he was brought up in Britain. (Could somebody fix this?) Further he was not a psychologist, although perhaps they mean “evolutionary psychologist,” but he wasn’t really that, either. Those who died on this day include Calamity Jane (1903; read about her) and Paddy Chayefsky (1981). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is being helpful as we search for pie cherries (we’re pals):
Hili: Wait for me, I’m going with you.
M. But we are just going to pick some cherries.
Hili: I will show Jerry where the nicest cherries are.
In Polish:
Hili: Zaczekajcie, idę z wami.
Małgorzata: Ale my idziemy tylko zrywać wiśnie.
Hili: To ja pokażę Jerremu gdzie są najładniejsze.
And the Big News from Winnipeg: Gus played with a stick. The video is below; look at that face!
Gus also managed to slip out of his harness and venture next door, but he was recovered without incident.
